There is a place in Death Valley near the Dunes where you can still see wagon tracks that are 100 to 150 years old. The place heals slowly. Perhaps you think one person cannot do a lot of damage, but multiply that by, say, a hundred thousand. You will not be the only one who wants to get a bit closer. Once a path is started, more people will follow. There are places where the John Muir Trail is worn hip deep with several new parallel paths.

Howard, the earth can most likely support many more people than currently live on it today. But there is a large difference between simply living and living what most of us believe to be a quality life.

Here in the west our milk and meat producers have discovered that they can increase the number of livestock that they raise by cramming them into feed lots. Now, do you want to take photographs of cattle spread across a rangeland or photographs of cattle crammed into pens? Do you want to live the equivalent life of a cow restricted to a small space, standing in your own filth?

Please go back and read the posts in this thread and I think you will see that some of the complaints that people have made are largely due to the stresses that our population size have made on our natural resources. We are having to restrict ourselves to fixed paths in order to not trample too much of a slow healing landscape.

------

Now to both Howard and "Sfleming".... Let me ask you both a favor.

Please consider ceasing to engage in the divisive behavior that is so tearing our culture apart. Name calling and characterizing groups of people by extreme examples does no good in the attempt to solve problems. Please make an effort to listen to all sides, communicate your ideas and concerns in an objective and helpful manner. We, as a country and a world, would be much better off if we quit treating issues as we would a sports engagement. You know, I win. You, therefore must loose.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']That's fine Bob but I don't feel like being polite when extremist environmentalists are working hand in glove with eletist leftist academics and most of the main stream media to revolutionize American society. My society. I for one am not going quietly.

I don't care to live in a socialist Big Brother world and it is plain that the Left is radically undermining western society. Environmentalism has become the spearpoint of the assault. It has to be not just resisted but fought because the end result of a command and control economy run by an oligarchy of academics and political scientists will be indeed a Brave New World.

Human freedom is what this country is all about. Yes it does not work without a responsible population and sadly many many of us have lost or not developed the intestinal fortitude to accept and shoulder necessary personal responsibility. The answer is not to imprison people within a police state run by eletes. Rather it is to educate and require people to exhibit character.

I have a quote hanging on my wall by John Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Or constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The natural state of man is to be inslaved by kings and despots. That is the history of us. This country has the oldest constitutional republic on earth and most other western constitutions were modeled on ours. We all grew up in, by all history's example, a very strange situation. We are free. I'm not willing to surrender my freedom to a bunch of scare mongers shrieking 'global warming' or any other such poppycock.

Peolpe who try and tell me and others that Giant Sequois are still being harvested need to be resisted strongly. I'm sorry if you don't like my tone. I don't like your intentions.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Bob, before you check out, please tell me where I was name calling. I reread this and other similar threads and just didn't see it. Any name calling was unintended.

Your intention to lead a good life and leave the earth a better place is admirable. There is a huge difference between leading "a good life" and living "the good life." The only group I have been critical of are those living "the good life" who now want to save it all and deny "the good life" to others. Those are the folks I see as being opposed to any kind of develoment because it ruin their enjoyment (the good life) of the environment. I personally don't think they really care all that much about the snail darter or spotted owl. Those creatures are simply the rally cry. "Save the spotted owl" sounds much better than "Save my playground."

I have referred to them as "Hollywooders." I see them as the people who have the good life and can now afford to pay three times what steak is worth. So they want to get rid of ugly feed lots in thename of the cows. They don't want to live in poluted air, so they drive electric cars powered by electricity made in someone else's backyard where someone else get to breate the poluted air.

I would add to that group those who oppose development in Iceland. They say it will ruin the pristine wilderness. That Icelanders don't need it. After all, they have a per capita GNP that is the envy of much of the world. Maybe so. But I also see on this site from a MR workshop attendee in that pristine wilderness that everything cost three times what i was worth. Maybe Icelanders need all that GNP if they want lettuce and tomato on that cod fish sandwich. Why should I have that simply because I have three times what its worth?

There are a lot of people on our planet. As the population grows, the space available to grow food decreases while the demand for food increases. Hence, a more practicle reason for feed lots than corporate greed.

No Bob, I don't want to live like a cow crammed into a feed lot. Nor do I want to live "the good life" of a range cow, free to roam about before the truck ride to McDonald's. But thus is the life of a cow. But I think that is what cows are for.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Howard, I'm sorry that you thought I was including you in the "please, no name calling" request. If you read that into my post, my bad.

I will repeat my request that we not try to make our points by using extreme examples, often very non-representing examples, of those who have a different opinion.

If I wanted to make a pro-environmental statement I could bring up the logger who recently drained his Cat oil into a local creek when changing his oil, the local guy who intentionally cut down several trees containing nesting egrets, the person who took a chain saw and girdled one of the largest redwoods in the area.

But those people are not representative of the loggers in our area. Most of the loggers and timber workers are good, decent people. And they are truly troubled by the behavior of these extreme, out of control individuals, just as the vast majority of environmentalists are disgusted by such activities as burning SUVs and damaging logging equipment.

We've gone from a country where there was plenty of room for people to do as they pleased. But the days when we could trash an area, move on, and let the environment recover are over. We've gone from a few wagons moving over fragile terrain to millions of feet and tires. That means that we have conflicts between people who want to make a living by harvesting/extracting natural resources and people who want to enjoy nature.

If we allow ourselves to get caught up in name calling and other divisive behavior we are going to spend a lot more time getting to some reasonable solutions. And we spend a lot of time with our knickers in knots rather than enjoying life.

Me? I prefer to be free range for as long as I've got until I head for the charcoal grill. (Actually, I'm getting interested in some of the new 'non-embalmed, non-concrete' burials rather than cremation. I'd rather be slowly taken up by a tree than adding to the global warming problem. ) [/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']AGW, it is my understanding that National Parks here in the US are to preserve unique areas of the US for people now and in the future to enjoy. I think they do a good job of that. Especially considering the high uses some areas get.

Forty years ago, I would drive to Yosemite Valley an any Friday night and find plenty of available camp sites. But now, well, first-come-first-serve is just not an option. To get a camp site this Friday night would nean you would have to arrive two weeks ago and wait. I can live with hard to get reservations. Or go somewhere else. There are planty of palces where you can still just arrive. Just not Yosemite Valley in July.

I hiked across the Grand Canyon (South-North and back) a few years ago. It was difficult to get one of the few permits to camp below the rim. I had to camp two extra nights on the norther rim to make it work. While talking with the Park Service, I learned that on Memorial Day (first summer holiday in the US) before the quota system ws put in place, there were nearly 3000 campers at the Colorado River campground at Phantom Ranch. When I visited, it was crouded with a few hundred. It is easy to see why some areas need extra protection.

On the other hand, there are plenty of places where few people go and access is pretty free and easy. The reason is so few people go there, there is no need to limit the visits. Yet. I really do feel limited access to certain areas is for the good of the area and the visitors, today and next year. The rules aren't there just to keep you from getting that great photo.

I like to go to North Coyotte Buttes in Utah/Arizona. There is a limit of 10 people per day. I go in August because that when I can go, and it is relatively easy to get one of the 10 permits 6 months in advance. Mainly because it is HOT. I have been there many times and most often I see no one else, or a single group of 2 or 3 people. Frankly, I prefer this to "SRO" crouds.

Some rules are in place for the least common denominator visitor. For instance, I have been in Death Valley many times. Stop at the visitor's center and ask about going to the Race Track. "4WD only. Very hard drive." I've been there in a Volvo wagon and a VW van. But the 70 year old tourists in their rented car from Las Vegas airport could get into serious trouble. So, the blanket advice is to not go, rather than, it is OK for you but not for them. Especially when they may be more up for the trip than you are. The Park Service doesn't want any one to have a bad time or get rescued, or worse.

Bob, I did read it that way. Sorry. And thanks for helping me. My reference to Hollywooders is meant to address people of wealth and high visibility. Some think we should all drive electric cars. I know I can't afford it now. I can't understand why I should vote for John Kerry because Cher thinks Connie Rice is an idiot. I saw a TV item with the proud actress showing off her organic garden in Malibu. We should all have one andlive like she does - so aware of the environment. Then she waters here tomatoes with water from the Feather River brought to LA through the California Aquaduct. If you have eaten lettuce in the US, it was probably grown in the Southwestern desert - totally unfit to grow much of anything but lizards and cactus but for water from the Colorado River, saved behind the Glenn Canyon, Hoover and other dams.

Bob, I am a retired nuclear engineer. I had a 35 year career, mostly in nuclear power generation. I think I understand what environmental extremists , well meaning or other wise, can do. And I also understand the risks of technology.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Howard, I said that I was going to withdraw from this discussion. I guess I lied. ;o)

I'm a retired psychologist. I can assure you that there are plenty of crazy people on both sides of every issue. (And even some crazy people who haven't taken sides. ;o)

To pick out one, or a few, of the most extreme on an issue to support your disagreement with that position does rational discussion no favors. I think we would be much, much better off if we refrained from the 'talk show' behavior of belittling the ideas of others and tried to understand their concerns and to clearly communicate ours.

[font color=\'#000000\']Interesting debate. What troubles me in all this is that most of you talk about how we, human kind, will be affected by our own land use strategies as far as our recreational behavior is concerned. There's much more to it than that, IMO. ANY open space that's preserved is good. Our fauna and flora suffered and still suffers tremendously by our most often unsustainable land use practices.

Case in point: I just returned from a trip to the Extremadura-region in western Spain, where agricultural practices are still relatively traditional and diverse, and there is lots of open space. What a huge difference in bird diversity compared to Switzerland, where I live. Large-scale monocultures and urban sprawl have robbed many bird species of their habitat here. Their numbers have declined, as they can't move elsewhere. There is no elsewhere!

The park management strategy that works best in my view is what I experienced in the national parks of Botswana (southern Africa): High price, very poor infrastructure = low visitor volume. Not a single tarred road (in fact, gut-wrenching road conditions most of the way). You pay more than USD 100 admittance for a vehicle and two persons per day. Camp sites consist of a mowed spot under a tree with a little number plate on it. Toilet facilities are monopolized by Baboons ;-). You're not allowed to leave your vehicle either (except at camps) - but considering the fact that there may be a pride of lions hiding in the tall grass a few meters away from you, you may not want to, anyway...

I agree, this is an elitist approach to conservation if you beleive that everyone is entitled to the recreational benefits that nature reserves can provide us with in the short term. But the fauna and flora are surely the merrier, and that's what's far more important in the long run IMO.

[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks for the Link Howard....There is a very useful page which sets out the rationale behind the selection of National Parks and their operation.

I'm assuming that those who are complaining are doing so in relation to park policy rather than to the concept of the National Park itself. I would therefore recommend that they follow the link and get a better understanding about what the park service are trying to achieve.

It is also clear from the ancillary info on the site that there is whole structured hierachical approach to natural heritage conservation in the US. From NP's, through State facilities to local designations and places managed by NGO's. There are also huge tracts of land which are unaffected by designation or restriction.There are recreational areas and there are conservation areas etc....in actual fact it seems prety well sorted.I'm now facinated by crypyobiotic soils and I'm off to find out more about them.

[font color=\'#000000\']I've come across this issue many times in my travels in the desert southwest and I've come to the opinion that "Leave nothing but footprints" is a bad idea. When I'm walking in the wilderness I pretend that I'm a secret agent on a covert mission and leaving footprints is the LAST thing I want to do.

It's usually pretty easy to avoid the cryptobiotic soil, once you know what it looks like. There are plenty of rock outcroppings, gravel beds, etc. that you can use to get yourself to your shooting location. Walking on rock or gravel leaves not a trace. A few seconds thought and a minor detour can eliminate all traces of your passage.

[font color=\'#000000\']Yet another layer of government is not the solution. People can be clean and considerate if they want to be. Spanking the bad ones doen't seem cost effective to me. Finger printing the tossed can would only work if the culprit had his prints on file. Not all of do. It would cost plenty, and in the end, a shrewed lawyer would say the finger prints only proved the culprit had touched the bottle, not thrown it away.

Many states have a deposit on bottles and cans. If you return the item, you get your deposit back. If you throw it away, it is still worth a nickel for someone to pick it up. Make the deposit big enough, and no one would throw it away. Bigger yet, and you might get mugged for your cans.

Some places have trail head limits on the number of people that can enter an area at any given time. This allows for a better wilderness experience and reduces impact on some fragile areas. Some areas are closed to camping altogether.

I have been to a few parks in Canada and New Zealand. The first thing I noticed was how pristine clean they were. So, people can take care of their parks if they want to.

It has also been my experience that the farther from the parking lot you get, the less trash and heavy impact you see. Yes, part of the reason is fewer people go there, but also the more serious the hikers, the better care they seem to take of parks and public places.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']I know places in Yosemite where you can spend several hours alone that are less than a half mile from the roads. It can be done. There are no trails to these places but no signs that say don't go.

I saw on the news today that a visitor to Yellowstone was scalded when he left the trail and broke through a thicn crust into very hot water. Another reason to follow the rules.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']I would never advocate letting people's houses burn, but fire is a part of the natural process. One of the reasons fire is a problem now is because we have attempted to control the natural process for too long. Undergrowth and dead wood have been allowed to pile up while we do everything we can to stop fires. Nature can take care of itself, but we insist on meddling.

I'm assuming you're not living in the US, because if you are, you are not paying high taxes. I'm not sure that paying taxes gives anyone the right to destroy something to obtain a good photograph.

I believe the welfare of the subject should always come first. I have no idea what crypto-biotic soil looks like, and I have no intention of leaving the trail in case I walk on it.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Spoken like a true believer who has never bothered to search and study OUTSIDE his own faith.

Yes fire is natural but naturally fire would sweep through forested lands in intervals of decades ... not centuries. Because we followed Smokie's precepts for so long forests became cluttered. The smart thing to do would be to log them, clear the brush and replant. The invirowhako thing to do is to keep out the loggers for no good reason and let them burn. Thus precluding logging for another century. Why do they hate logging so much? Because they love Salmon? Salmon can be protected through logging operations done intelligently. When thousands of acres of forest overgrown for a century burn ... everything dies and it takes a long time for it to come back. So why do the tree-huggers advocate such foolish practices? I think it is because they are anti-human-anti-capitalist and thus anti-freedom.

You also make the slanderous assertion that I advocate destroying something because I pay taxes. I think I made it pretty clear that I personally am very aware of the wilderness and my environment and that I believe in nurturing both. Your statement simply reveals your prejudice and dishonesty.

As to taxes: Just what is 'high' to your mind. Right now ... all told ... I surrender about 50% of my income .... most of which goes to support lazy irresponsible people who can not manage to make their way in life. You want more?

And back to the wonderful 'crypto' ... 'biotic'. Don't you wonder about that nomenclature? I certainly do. I think it's bullshit.

If you read my other posts in this thread you will see that I advocate more money for support of our wildlands and I advocate that those who use them do the payin. I also advocate licensing and educating to protect them. What's your plan?[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']I have literally no respect for environmentalists any longer. They've been caught in far too many lies and deceits. Whether it's planting lynx fur in Minnesota, reintroducing wolves where they are not needed, protecting cougars where they kill children and eat women hikers or preserving crocs in Austraila where they can eat more people.

The environmentalists are extreme. Yet they alway accuse industrialists of crimes against nature. I'd like to see a happy medium. Thousands of lives were impacted and the price of lumber has been doubled by the Spotted Owl scam. This was an out and out lie.

Same thing is being done right now in Ca. with the red legged frog. Plant one frog in one drainage ditch and a billion dollar development can be killed.

Of course thats just fine because 'development' is evil. Development means jobs and houses for people to live in.

Here in Central Texas the environmentalists have gotten near total control of development using the lever of the Edwards Aquifer. This aquifer MUST be kept nearly full all year round. Why? Because of an indroduced non indigenous species of minnow and a salmander. These live in non natural springs that were dynamited out of the hills in the thirties and have been netted out prior to severe droughts in the past when the springs did dry up ( the aquifer was still 90% full) and then were later reintroduced where they flourished.

Of late a 4 golf course and several hundred home development was quashed after years of planning by these 'nature lovers'.

So ... yes I call environmentalists names. I think they are charlatans with a hidden agenda. I don't have to wonder about this. I know it. The Left went underground and came back up calling themselves environmentalists. Their goals have remained unchanged. To institute a command and control economy ruled by an elete few.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']People are a natural part of the earth's environment, no matter how you think we got here (except perhaps by spaceship from somewhere else). I see the problem to be that people are the only species on earth that is capable of making huge changes to the environment. So it may be a matter of degree. A beaver builds a am. Cool. Humans build a dam. Bad. The beaver pond eventually fills with dirt and a meadow is born. Cool. Lake Meade fills with dirt. Bad. Both change the world, ony to a different degree. Some environmentalists say the beaver dam is natural, Hoover Dam is man-made. True, but not the whole truth. Humans are natural so what they do is natural so Hoover Dam is natural. Humans use concrete, not mud and trees.

A small beaver dam benefits a few beavers. Hoover Dam benefits millions of people.[/font]

I would like to try and inject a droplet of truth into Bob's seemingly closed mind.

NO Giant Sequoias are threatened with logging. Not for many decades. There shall never be a Giant Sequoia harvested ... EVER again. There is limited logging of the Dawn and Coastal species of Redwood which are much lesser species which grow rather quickly compared to their altitude loving bigger cousins.

This is how environmentalists spread their propaganda and misinformation. This sort of manipulation of the public mind is their stock and trade. You can't make any headway with them either because we are talking religion here. Mother Earth is their goddess and they will do anything to protect her. Spreading lies is justified because the cause is so righteous.

In the beginning the environmentalists did humankind a great favor. Back then they were called conservationist and I think that was a more honest word. We WERE acting in a near oblivious manner to our surroundings and horrible crimes were committed against the land we all must live on and from. Most of the wrongs have been wholly stopped in the US. The rest of the world will catch up when the big picture economics of it all hits home. This is now happening in China. The industrialists ( all sons and daughters of the old guard millitary) are realizing that piles of money are not so fun if you and your children cannot breathe the air.

But now the environmentalists carry on as if no progress has been made. They cry ever louder and trumpet their alarmist BS ever more hysterically. They come at us preaching fire and brimstone and ever lasting damnation if we do not reverse the industrial age. It's just nonsense.

Human population and science got us into this situation and that is the only way to proceed. We must continue to develop non poluting tech and teach responsibility to our kids. Population pressure is lessening as the entire world becomes industrialized. Europe and America only grow due to immigration now. Sensible progress can still be made. The screeching of the treehugging alarmists needs to stop. They are actually have a reverse effect to their goals now. The sky is not falling and there is no wolf. There are concerns and dangers. They will be faced and dealt with.

Perhaps we shall cause some global warming. This will not harm the planet. Some folks may have to relocate. Some folks will get a better climate. Some will get worse. It will happen so gradually that the population moves will not even be realized by the affectees at the time.

We WILL come up with an alternative to fossil fuels long before it could become the problem the treehuggers say it is right now. Or we won't and we will go back to the stone age. None of us will see it.

I still maintain that the environmentalists (the leaders) have a hidden agenda and it is political.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']My intentions are to lead a good life and to try to leave the earth in a little better condition than how I found it. I'm sorry you don't like my intentions.

(Let me clear up a little misconception/understanding. The redwoods in my neck of the woods are coastals, not Sequoias. We've already cut so many of the Sequoias that we keep the few remaining in a couple of inland parks.)

"Sfleming", you sound like a very angry person. I'm going to drop out of this discussion (it has little to do with photography anyway). I hope you find a way to relax a bit and try to see issues from more than one extreme position. The world is a very complex place....[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Elitist? Yep. Pretty soon only Hollywooders will be able to fly to Africa and ebjoy nature. Pay the $100 or whatever, jump into their Landrover and go see the wilds. I'm happy for them. Maybe I will able to see their National Geogrphic special.[/font]